RFC 46 (rfc46) - Page 1 of 17
ARPA Network protocol notes
Alternative Format: Original Text Document
Network Working Group Edwin E. Meyer, Jr.
Request for Comments: 46 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
17 April 1970
ARPA Network Protocol Notes
The attached document contains comments and suggestions of the
Network Working Group at Project MAC. It is based upon the protocol
outlined in NWG/RFC 33, 36, and later documents.
This proposal is intended as a contribution to the dialog leading to
a protocol specification to be accepted by the entire Network Working
Group.
We solicit your comments.
I - INTRODUCTION
In this document the Network Working Group at MIT Project MAC suggest
modifications and extensions to the protocol specified by Carr,
Crocker, and Cerf in a preprint of their 1970 SJCC paper and extended
by Crocker in NWG/RFC 36. This document broadly outlines our
proposal but does not attempt to be a complete specification. It is
intended to be an indication of the type and extent of the protocol
we think should be initially implemented.
We agree with the basic concept of simplex communication between
sockets having unique identifiers. We propose the implementation of
a slightly modified subset of the network commands specified in
NWG/RFC 36 plus the ERR command as specified by Harslem and Heafner in
NWG/RFC 40.
Given the basic objective of getting all ARPA contractors onto the
network and talking to each other at the earliest possible date, we
think that it is important to implement an initial protocol that is
reasonably simple yet extendable while providing for the major
initial uses of the network. It should be a simple protocol so as to
elicit the broadest possible support and to be easily implementable
at all installations with a minimum of added software.
While the protocol will evolve, the fundamentals of a protocol
accepted and implemented by all installations are likely to prove
very resistant to change. Thus it is very important to make the
initial protocol open-ended and flexible. A simple basic protocol is
more likely to succeed in this respect than a complicated one. This